New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Complex Lit Blog

Spoliation — No Abuse of Discretion to Impose Monetary Sanctions & Not Adverse Inference Where Ex-Employee 4 Times Attempted to Delete Data from Hard Drive and Was Not Candid in Discovery (No Reference to Rule 37(e))

Integrated Direct Mktg., LLC v. May, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9369 (4th Cir. May 30, 2017): PER CURIAM: Integrated Direct Marketing, LLC ("IDM") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Drew May and Merkle, Inc. ("Merkle," collectively, "Defendants"), whom it accused of misappropri ...
Integrated Direct Mktg., LLC v. May, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9369 (4th Cir. May 30, 2017): PER CURIAM: Integrated Direct Marketing, LLC ("IDM") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Drew May and Merkle, Inc. ("Merkle," collectively, "Defendants"),…
Continue Reading

Fee-Splitting Agreement Unenforceable for Lack of Client Consent Per Model Rule 1.5(e)(2) (Case law Split), But Quantum Meruit OK — “Defendants … Develop An Argument Grounded in Their Regret Rather Than on Terms of the … Agreement” (Good Quote)

Parker Waichman LLP v. Salas L/C, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108823 (D.P.R. July 13, 2017): Before the Court is defendants John F. Nevares and Associates, P.S.C. ("Nevares")'s, Salas LC ("Salas")'s, and Eric J. Quetglas-Jordan d/b/a Quetglas Law Firm ("Quetglas")'s  motion to dismiss plaintiff Parker Waichman ...
Parker Waichman LLP v. Salas L/C, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108823 (D.P.R. July 13, 2017): Before the Court is defendants John F. Nevares and Associates, P.S.C. ("Nevares")'s, Salas LC ("Salas")'s, and Eric J. Quetglas-Jordan d/b/a Quetglas Law Firm ("Quetglas")'s  motion…
Continue Reading

FRAP 39’s “Costs” Don’t Include Attorney’s Fees (F.R.Civ.P. 68 Distinguished) — Denial of “Costs” in Appellate Mandate Doesn’t Bar Award of Fees for Success on Appeal under Fee-Shifting Statute Defining Fees as “Costs”

Hines v. City of Albany, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12042 (2d Cir. July 6, 2017): Constance and Marshay Hines appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, C.J.) denying their motion for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. This is the third t ...
Hines v. City of Albany, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12042 (2d Cir. July 6, 2017): Constance and Marshay Hines appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, C.J.) denying their…
Continue Reading

Blogs, Like Newspaper Articles, Are Hearsay When Offered for the Truth

Welch v. City of Albuquerque, 2016 WL 8809479 (D. N.M. May 13, 2016): *1 THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants Raymond Schultz, William Roseman, Cecil Knox, David Hubbard, Robert Smith, J.R. Potter, and Kevin Gagne’s (Defendants) Second Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for ...
Welch v. City of Albuquerque, 2016 WL 8809479 (D. N.M. May 13, 2016): *1 THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants Raymond Schultz, William Roseman, Cecil Knox, David Hubbard, Robert Smith, J.R. Potter, and Kevin Gagne’s (Defendants) Second Motion…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Filing Notice of Dismissal Instead of Agreeing to Dismiss with Prejudice — Fact Plaintiff Had to Post Bond to Sue Put Lawyer on Notice of Potential Frivolousness — Bad Faith, Improper Purpose Interchangeable in 6th Circuit

U.S. ex rel. Tingley v. PNC Fin’l Servs. Grp., 2017 WL 3098178 (6th Cir. July 21, 2017): *1 Relator William Tingley, III repeatedly filed claims alleging varying theories of liability—including liability under the False Claims Act and Michigan’s Hazardous Waste Management Act and liability for bank fraud, tax ev ...
U.S. ex rel. Tingley v. PNC Fin’l Servs. Grp., 2017 WL 3098178 (6th Cir. July 21, 2017): *1 Relator William Tingley, III repeatedly filed claims alleging varying theories of liability—including liability under the False Claims Act and Michigan’s Hazardous Waste…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Finding of Professional Misconduct Appealable Even If No Sanction Imposed — Extrajudicial Conduct Sanctionable under Inherent Power — Rule 41(a)(1) Dismissal OK for Any Reason, Including to “Flee the Jurisdiction or the Judge”

Adams v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13369 (8th Cir. July 25, 2017): In this consolidated appeal, the appellants, attorneys for plaintiffs2 and defendants3 in a putative class action, appeal from the district court's orders (1) finding that the appellants violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ...
Adams v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13369 (8th Cir. July 25, 2017): In this consolidated appeal, the appellants, attorneys for plaintiffs2 and defendants3 in a putative class action, appeal from the district court's orders (1) finding…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Notice Taken on 12(b)(1) Motion of Records on Gov’t & University Websites, and Docs Obtained via FOIA, for Purpose of Showing the Info Was Publicly Available — Wayback Machine Results, Too

U.S. ex rel. Hong v. Newport Sensors, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188295 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2016): PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. 52) Before the Court is a Motion to Dismi ...
U.S. ex rel. Hong v. Newport Sensors, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188295 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2016): PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. …
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions: Recklessness Alone Insufficient — Argument Not Frivolous If Issue Unresolved and Out-of-Circuit Precedent Supports It — Failure to Withdraw Claim & Opposing Dismissal Once Aware of Baselessness Is Sanctionable

Stone Creek, Inc. v Omnia Italian Design, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12393 (9th Cir. July 11, 2017):   This appeal, set in the high-stakes world of furniture sales, runs the gamut of trademark infringement issues. The facts are somewhat unusual: the alleged infringer, leather furniture manufacturer Omnia I ...
Stone Creek, Inc. v Omnia Italian Design, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12393 (9th Cir. July 11, 2017):   This appeal, set in the high-stakes world of furniture sales, runs the gamut of trademark infringement issues. The facts are somewhat unusual:…
Continue Reading

Rule 36 Admissions — Judge “Implicitly” Allowed Withdrawal by Admitting Contrary Testimony: “To Order a New Trial on the Basis of a Technical Error Would Be to Arrogate Form over Substance, Wasting Everybody’s Time to No Purpose” (Good Quote)

The plaintiff, which for simplicity we'll call just Tate, sells ingredients used in the food and beverage industry. The defendant, Glatt, a member of a substantial German conglomerate called the Glatt group, sells processing equipment to the food industry. In 2008 Tate and Glatt made a contract whereby Glatt would for $7,042,022 design and build a three-story ...
The plaintiff, which for simplicity we'll call just Tate, sells ingredients used in the food and beverage industry. The defendant, Glatt, a member of a substantial German conglomerate called the Glatt group, sells processing equipment to the food industry. In…
Continue Reading

Equivocal Texts ≠ Statements against Penal Interest — Mere Possibility Witness Might Invoke Fifth ≠ Unavailability — Authentication of Texts by Evidence of Phone Ownership & Contents OK, But Double Hearsay, Cloudy Circumstances Insufficient

Cottmeyer v. State, 2017 Md. App. LEXIS 725 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 17, 2017): Appellant, Matthew Everett Cottmeyer, was charged in the Circuit Court for Somerset County, Maryland, with first degree burglary, conspiracy to commit first degree burglary, theft between $1,000 and $10,000, and related offenses. Appellant was acquitted by ...
Cottmeyer v. State, 2017 Md. App. LEXIS 725 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 17, 2017): Appellant, Matthew Everett Cottmeyer, was charged in the Circuit Court for Somerset County, Maryland, with first degree burglary, conspiracy to commit first degree burglary, theft…
Continue Reading
Previous123124125126127128129Next

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice